Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description does add real context: the edit-access requirement and the 'moves the head pointer' mechanism. However, it explicitly labels the operation 'Non-destructive', which directly opposes destructiveHint=true, so the framing is misleading rather than clarifying.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence front-loads the action and outcome before the parenthetical prerequisite and the mechanism clause. No filler or repetition; every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, access requirement, and mechanism, which is adequate. The main gap is that it leaves both parameters semantically undocumented and its safety framing conflicts with the annotation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters. The description only alludes to 'the chosen version', loosely implying revisionId, and says nothing about artifactId, its UUID format, or how to obtain either value. With two undocumented params, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (Restore), resource (a previous version of a Duvo Pulse dashboard), and outcome (making it live again). It is easy to distinguish from siblings such as listPulseDashboardVersions or getPulseDashboardVersionHtml, which read rather than activate a version.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a prerequisite (requires edit access) and implies the usage context (rolling a dashboard back to an earlier revision), but names no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over updatePulseDashboard or refreshPulseDashboard.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.